Obama Administration to Honor ‘Green’ Schools That Teach ‘Environmental Literacy’

[gsvol]

Objection, unrelated to thread.

Goes directly to the topic;

"Indocrinating public school students in politically
correct attitudes."

HOT AIR CAUSES GLOBAL WARMING.

GLOBAL WARMING IS SOOOOO GAY.

GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE.

THOSE WHO OPPOSE CLIMATE CHANGE
RAISE YOUR HANDS.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND GAY RIGHTS GO HAND IN HAND.

AND CLIMATE CHANGE IS A MAJOR CAUSE OF OBESITY.

 

[shortgameVol]

Who took the time to tell you the second paragraph?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

No one smartazz. You know it's true

 

[n_huffhines]

Africa would certainly be due to a larger subtropical high pressure cell over the sahara. Now, a sthp normally sits there, but it was a big year for that (remember the summer heat wave in Europe, directly related.)

not sure about south America, other than the amazon having a drier year than normal, so perhap less evapotranspiration than normal.

Why do you think local industrialization matters? It doesn't at all.

Keep in mind as well anomalies are called such for a reason. In and of themselves, they're just unexplained regional deviations in a year, which may or may not be indicative of anything. The warm anomalies get a lot of attention because the models predict more of them, which has happened so far. Now that we are leaving a period of less solar activity, things could get a bit dramatic like in the late 1990's, as far as temp anomalies.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I just figured industrial activity should mean more emissions. That's not necessarily true because more advanced technologies will burn cleaner.

 

[BigPapaVol]

No one smartazz. You know it's true

did you lip synch that last sentence?

 

[shortgameVol]

did you lip synch that last sentence?

Of coursek:

 

[utvolpj]

they should focus on the literacy part first and then worry about the environmental stuff

 

[gsvol]

I just figured industrial activity should mean more emissions. That's not necessarily true because more advanced technologies will burn cleaner.

Rather than indoctrinating students in pseudoscientific theory, they should be taught to think for themselves.

Consider drastic governmental programs based on dubious thinking such as mandated ethanol use:

Below the Gnat Line: Boondoggle Ethanol Program Got You Down? Help End it.

Have you figured out that the federal ethanol program is not about becoming energy independent, but about putting Midwest corn farmers on the government dole? If not, keep reading. If so, are you ready to help end it? That's in here, too.

If you think ethanol lowers fuel prices, then I guess you don't know that each gallon of ethanol is subsidized 47.5 cents per gallon by our tax dollars. In fact, Brazil exports ethanol, but we put a 54 cents per gallon import tax on Brazilian ethanol and then limit its import to seven percent of US production. If it were about saving money, we'd simply import the much less expensive ethanol from Brazil.

If it were about energy independence, we wouldn't us corn, either. It takes about 65% more energy to produce ethanol from corn than the ethanol yields. Who says so? University of California-Berkeley geoengineering professor Tad W. Patzek in Science Daily back in 2005.

Obama's science czar maitains that America must undergo deindustrialization and that wealth must be spread around the world.

Making America poor WILL NOT make anyone else wealthy.

Shutting down America energy production derived from coal while India and China add one new plant per week each will not reduce co2 levels, however it will deindustrialize America.

 

[gsvol]

Fear of climate change is harming children ClimateQuotes.com

Children are not experiencing climate change (they simply haven't lived long enough). They cannot observe it happening, especially in America where there has been very little change in temperature at all. Since they cannot observe it, everything they know about it comes from being told about it.
------------------

When children are taught about climate change, it is to provoke action. The future of the planet is already certain, unless action is taken. The earth will warm significantly and have a devastating impact on mankind. Unless we act now. Don't believe this is what's being taught? Take a look at the following quotes from children:
-----------------------------

This fear of climate change harms children. When a person loses a sense of control over his life, he is far more likely to become depressed and develop other personality disorders. These poor children have been told that the world is being irrevocably damaged, and since they have no reason to challenge it, they readily accept it. This leads to, at best, a general sense of anxiety and uncertainty about the future, and at worst an outright fear of death. Look at what the children are saying! They fear death, they say the planet will be uninhabitable, they say the planet won't even exist, they worry about species extinction, they essentially believe that the human race is doomed to die.

What a terrible way to grow up! How incredibly perverted their entire perception of the world must be. We are raising a generation that believes mankind is rapidly committing suicide.
---------------------------------

Adults who believe in climate change automatically go to the scariest worst case scenarios in order to convince others there is a problem. Massive sea level increases, massive temperature increases, floods, hurricanes, famine - you name it, climate change will cause it or make it 100 times worse. I think that they know, deep down, it is unlikely these things will really happen
--------------------------------

Adults who preach climate catastrophe need to examine their impact on children. When they make sweeping claims about our future with absolute certainty, they should stop and think "what are the implications of a child accepting this claim unreservedly?".

 

[IPorange]

I just figured industrial activity should mean more emissions. That's not necessarily true because more advanced technologies will burn cleaner.

Global atmospheric circulation spreads the emissions out in days... But I think there is a conceptual misunderstanding here. Local emissions do not affect local climate. Global emissions affect global climate. If you drop food coloring in a bath tub, that drop dissipates throughout the tub quickly, without much effect. If several drops are put in the tub, it dissipates but the quantity is enough to change the color. And it does so everywhere.

Atmospheric carbon is not evenly distributed, but it is constantly mixing and diffusing, with seasonal oscillations due to plant growth and other biosphere oscillations. That is why the mauna loa monitoring site is preferred, as it is taking a reading from the pacific, rather than from an area with a large industrial source or with a great local fluctuation in plant sequestration.

Another popular monitoring site is in Antarctica, as the seasonal fluctuations are minimal.
Posted via VolNation Mobile